ADVERTISEMENT

Did Cincinatti belong in the college football playoff?

IIRC Our conference would prefer to recognize the regular season champ but are forced by the NCAA to select the tournament champion. The regular season champ is a much better indicator of the respective strengths of the individual teams due to the number of games played. Football doesn't have that.

Also what happens in the final few weeks of the NFL is not indicative because many teams who have achieved the highest seeding they are able to attain (whether it be a wild card, home team throughout, or somewhere in between) often, very often, rest their starters by only playing them in a quarter or a half.
But the NCAA does not force a conference to hold a championship game / tournament.

In basketball, Frank McGuire argued against the ACC holding an end-of-season tournament to determine who would represent the league in the dance, for the reasons you indicated.

To McGuire's credit, he was consistent in his opposition to it, both while at UnCarolina and at USC. As we all so well know, it finally caught up with him at the 1970 ACC Tournament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
But the NCAA does not force a conference to hold a championship game / tournament.

In basketball, Frank McGuire argued against the ACC holding an end-of-season tournament to determine who would represent the league in the dance, for the reasons you indicated.

To McGuire's credit, he was consistent in his opposition to it, both while at UnCarolina and at USC. As we all so well know, it finally caught up with him at the 1970 ACC Tournament.
Believe that is still true, but you and I know the only reason conferences do it......to have content to put on TV and as a result $$$$$.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: atl-cock
FCS lets conference champs in and then at-large so its the same concept. If you have a tournament with less teams than conferences, you can't create a seeding system based on conference championships. Lastly, why should have Utah or Pitt been in over UGA. No way you can argue either would be better or had an overall better season. So are we just rewarding teams or trying to find the best?
Yet I found a way to get all conference champions in with an 8 team playoff in my first post. So yeah it can be done. Key word with "trying to get the best teams in" is "trying". I'll ask again, did the committee get the best 4 teams in? Its subjective when it doesnt have to be. Why don't they call it what it really is... a national championship invitational. That label may cheapen it tho so I wont hold my breath.
I've enjoyed talking to you. I've enjoyed hearing everyone's opinion on this. Truth is lot of what I have been doing is playing the devil's advocate. College football is what it is and I'm really not that passionate about changes but I do believe it could be made better than it is now. I'm to the point where I'm having to repeat myself ad nauseam so if you have a response, I'll see it. Have a nice day. 🙂
 
Believe that is still true, but you and I know the only reason conferences do it......to have content to put on TV and as a result $$$$$.
TV wasn't an issue in the very early days of the ACC. However the net profit from ticket sales essentially paid for the annual expenses the ACC incurred.

In principle, McGuire was correct, IMO. For better or worse, there were/are other factors to consider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
It really isn’t that hard to understand. Conference championships are post season. You can’t call them regular reason when the regular season is who decides who goes there. When you lost most defiantly matters. IMHO once again, you can’t lose your conference championship and get into the playoff. I don’t care if you are the best team ever and you lose that game. You just simply can not lose that game. It should have just as much importance as a playoff game in my option. Lose and your out. That answers all your questions.
No, you didn't answer a single one. You just repeated your same points that don't make sense. What better team should have replaced Georgia as a playoff spot? There are 2 P5 conferences represented now. That leaves 3 others. Under your scenario of conference champions here are your choices:
PAC 12 Champion - Utah @10-3
Big 12 Champion - Baylor @ 11-2
ACC Champion - Pitt @ 11-2
None of these were good enough to supplant Cincinnati from the the AAC. So which one do you consider better than UGA to make the playoffs?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cockofdawn
No, you didn't answer a single one. You just repeated your same points that don't make sense. What better team should have replaced Georgia as a playoff spot? There are 2 P5 conferences represented now. That leaves 3 others. Under your scenario of conference champions here are your choices:
PAC 12 Champion - Utah @10-3
Big 12 Champion - Baylor @ 11-2
ACC Champion - Pitt @ 11-2
None of these were good enough to supplant Cincinnati from the the AAC. So which one do you consider better than UGA to make the playoffs?
I think it’s a matter of examining P5 conference championships. If they can be ignored, then what are they worth in regard to the CFP? Is the goal to construct a pathway for teams to legitimately earn their way in? Or to subjectively plug in the 4 ‘best’ teams? If so, why worry about conference championships?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghostofpepsicock
I think it’s a matter of examining P5 conference championships. If they can be ignored, then what are they worth in regard to the CFP? Is the goal to construct a pathway for teams to legitimately earn their way in? Or to subjectively plug in the 4 ‘best’ teams? If so, why worry about conference championships?
Who has legitimately earned their way in? And why all the infatuation with conference championships in relation to the national playoffs? Why did we worry about conference championships for 100 years before there ever was a playoff? The two have nothing to with each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CockyinNoVa
Who has legitimately earned their way in? And why all the infatuation with conference championships in relation to the national playoffs? Why did we worry about conference championships for 100 years before there ever was a playoff? The two have nothing to with each other.
There is no infatuation with conference championships on my end. I’m just wondering what they are worth to the CFP.

They have nothing to do with each other? What if Bama lost to Georgia in the SECCG? They wouldn’t be in the playoff. However, Bama won. Which allowed Bama to take over the top spot. It had everything in the world to do with the CFP. The SECCG result mattered more than anything and ultimately determined the CFP.

Is the current system really that different from the BCS? You’re just picking 4 teams instead of using polls and a computer to pick 2. The CFP is in the hands of a committee. A committee that is looking at 5 major conferences and 4 spots. It’s flawed from the beginning if you have to eliminate a conference from the CFP every year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boom4life
There is no infatuation with conference championships on my end. I’m just wondering what they are worth to the CFP.

They have nothing to do with each other? What if Bama lost to Georgia in the SECCG? They wouldn’t be in the playoff. However, Bama won. Which allowed Bama to take over the top spot. It had everything in the world to do with the CFP. The SECCG result mattered more than anything and ultimately determined the CFP.

Is the current system really that different from the BCS? You’re just picking 4 teams instead of using polls and a computer to pick 2. The CFP is in the hands of a committee. A committee that is looking at 5 major conferences and 4 spots. It’s flawed from the beginning if you have to eliminate a conference from the CFP every year.
That would not have been because they lost the SEC championship. It would have been because they had TWO LOSSES. If UGA had a loss before the SECCG they would not be in the playoffs now either, but they didn't. Both teams have one loss just like everyone else even considered for the playoffs except for a lower level team in Cincinnati, which we now know had no business being in the playoff to begin with. In the BCS system we saw an SEC champion and undefeated Auburn left out of the championship altogether. This has not happened and will never happen in the playoff system as there will never be more than 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year. So YES the current system is a vast improvement over the BCS. The BCS was really no different from the previous system which involved no competition among the best teams but rather was a popularity contest among sportswriters. How do you think clemsux was NC in 1981? They played a weak schedule with only one quality team in UGA and they won a close game at home. For that they win a NC? How pathetic is that? We finally have a REAL way to determine a champion. It may not be perfect but is vastly better than anything we've had in the past.

How is the system flawed by leaving out a P5 champion? By saying this you are saying Utah at 10-3 should have been included in the playoffs, which is totally assinine.
 
That would not have been because they lost the SEC championship. It would have been because they had TWO LOSSES. If UGA had a loss before the SECCG they would not be in the playoffs now either, but they didn't. Both teams have one loss just like everyone else even considered for the playoffs except for a lower level team in Cincinnati, which we now know had no business being in the playoff to begin with. In the BCS system we saw an SEC champion and undefeated Auburn left out of the championship altogether. This has not happened and will never happen in the playoff system as there will never be more than 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year. So YES the current system is a vast improvement over the BCS. The BCS was really no different from the previous system which involved no competition among the best teams but rather was a popularity contest among sportswriters. How do you think clemsux was NC in 1981? They played a weak schedule with only one quality team in UGA and they won a close game at home. For that they win a NC? How pathetic is that? We finally have a REAL way to determine a champion. It may not be perfect but is vastly better than anything we've had in the past.

How is the system flawed by leaving out a P5 champion? By saying this you are saying Utah at 10-3 should have been included in the playoffs, which is totally assinine.
It’s flawed because it’s subjective. People pick who they “think” are the top 4 teams. I don’t think they have always gotten that right. Secondly the playoff as it sits right now makes conference championship totally useless. It needs to be a set route with no subjectivity like the nfl and multiple other sports in my opinion. No committee picking who “deserves” to be in. Win and meet certain criteria and you are in. You play your way in and not hope the committee thinks you are one of the 4 best teams. Of you lose your conference championship and you were in contention to make the playoffs your done. Conference championships should be eliminations games as they are played in the post season and not the regular season.
 
That would not have been because they lost the SEC championship. It would have been because they had TWO LOSSES. If UGA had a loss before the SECCG they would not be in the playoffs now either, but they didn't. Both teams have one loss just like everyone else even considered for the playoffs except for a lower level team in Cincinnati, which we now know had no business being in the playoff to begin with. In the BCS system we saw an SEC champion and undefeated Auburn left out of the championship altogether. This has not happened and will never happen in the playoff system as there will never be more than 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year. So YES the current system is a vast improvement over the BCS. The BCS was really no different from the previous system which involved no competition among the best teams but rather was a popularity contest among sportswriters. How do you think clemsux was NC in 1981? They played a weak schedule with only one quality team in UGA and they won a close game at home. For that they win a NC? How pathetic is that? We finally have a REAL way to determine a champion. It may not be perfect but is vastly better than anything we've had in the past.

How is the system flawed by leaving out a P5 champion? By saying this you are saying Utah at 10-3 should have been included in the playoffs, which is totally assinine.
You are not even describing a playoff. What you are saying is that what we have now is no different than what we had before this playoff system. You are saying the best four teams did not get in but out of that we somehow get (in your words) a "true" champion. Your idea of a playoff and mine are vastly different.
 
That would not have been because they lost the SEC championship. It would have been because they had TWO LOSSES. If UGA had a loss before the SECCG they would not be in the playoffs now either, but they didn't. Both teams have one loss just like everyone else even considered for the playoffs except for a lower level team in Cincinnati, which we now know had no business being in the playoff to begin with. In the BCS system we saw an SEC champion and undefeated Auburn left out of the championship altogether. This has not happened and will never happen in the playoff system as there will never be more than 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year. So YES the current system is a vast improvement over the BCS. The BCS was really no different from the previous system which involved no competition among the best teams but rather was a popularity contest among sportswriters. How do you think clemsux was NC in 1981? They played a weak schedule with only one quality team in UGA and they won a close game at home. For that they win a NC? How pathetic is that? We finally have a REAL way to determine a champion. It may not be perfect but is vastly better than anything we've had in the past.

How is the system flawed by leaving out a P5 champion? By saying this you are saying Utah at 10-3 should have been included in the playoffs, which is totally assinine.
Again. By winning the SECCG, Bama set the CFP. You can’t say that the 2 have nothing to do with each other. You have 2 teams from the same conference that are fighting it out for a reason. That result matters. It determined the CFP. If Iowa would have taken out Michigan, it would have taken Michigan out of the playoff. Your problem is that you obviously have no consideration for the ACC, Big12 and PAC10. Those conferences are down this year, but that attitude creates bias going forward.

I didn’t say that Utah deserved to be in the playoff. I’m saying that the system is flawed in general because you are eliminating a P5 conference before the season even starts. How can you say that all of the P5 champions won’t be undefeated? It’s unlikely, but possible. 1 conference won’t get an opportunity, even if all 5 P5 teams were undefeated heading into the CFP. As others have said, it’s subjective. You just stated that Cincinnati didn’t deserve to be in the playoff. SO YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT THEY GOT IT WRONG!!!
 
Last edited:
If the CFP is fair and balanced, why not put Georgia at 2 or 4? They were the only team that lost their last game. If anything they deserved to be 4th. Hell, they got blown out, while Cincy and Michigan won their conference. It’s because the biased CFP didn’t want Bama and Georgia to play 1st round.
 
Again. By winning the SECCG, Bama set the CFP. You can’t say that the 2 have nothing to do with each other. You have 2 teams from the same conference that are fighting it out for a reason. That result matters. It determined the CFP. If Iowa would have taken out Michigan, it would have taken Michigan out of the playoff. Your problem is that you obviously have no consideration for the ACC, Big12 and PAC10. Those conferences are down this year, but that attitude creates bias going forward.

I didn’t say that Utah deserved to be in the playoff. I’m saying that the system is flawed in general because you are eliminating a P5 conference before the season even starts. How can you say that all of the P5 champions won’t be undefeated? It’s unlikely, but possible. 1 conference won’t get an opportunity, even if all 5 P5 teams were undefeated heading into the CFP. As others have said, it’s subjective. You just stated that Cincinnati didn’t deserve to be in the playoff. SO YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT THEY GOT IT WRONG!!!
No, I'm saying you are completely wrong. In Playoff you have to have at least a 4 team bracket. Cincinnati was not a good choice, but neither were any of the others who could have been considered. In other words, the 4th team is irrelevant in this case. There is no way possible in college football to have a legitimate objective playoff system similar to what the NFL does. It can't be done. It is not set up that way. All conferences are not equal and saying you have to be a conference champion to be in the playoffs is bogus as you would have ended up with a 2 or 3 loss team in the playoff vs a one loss team that everyone knows is clearly better. It HAS to be subjective in order to get the best teams in. And you HAVE to have the best teams in order to have a true legitimate NC. So far under the current system no legitimate NC contender has been excluded from the playoffs, unlike both previous systems.
 
Last edited:
You are not even describing a playoff. What you are saying is that what we have now is no different than what we had before this playoff system. You are saying the best four teams did not get in but out of that we somehow get (in your words) a "true" champion. Your idea of a playoff and mine are vastly different.
Still you nor anyone else has answered the question - If this system is wrong, then who should have gotten into the playoffs that is better over Georgia?

And yes, this system is vastly different from previous ones. We've didn't have a true champion until this playoff system as evidenced in 2005 when an undefeated SEC Champion from the best conference in all of college football was completely left out of a chance at the NC. It was a bogus championship. Under this system that has not happened and probably never will as you would have to have 5 unbeaten P5 teams for that to happen, and that has never been done in the history of college football. Also in 1981 under the previous system to the BCS clemsux was declared NC with only one quality win over Georgia in a close game on their home field. Do you think they were the best team in all of college football that year? That system was truly a joke. It wasn't a championship at all. It was a popularity contest among sportswriters.

If this system is wrong, then name one time that the NC was not deserving of the title. Name what team got snubbed and should have been NC. As much as I hate clemsux, at least their championships they won under the current system were legitimate. They beat the best of the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pauliecock
If the CFP is fair and balanced, why not put Georgia at 2 or 4? They were the only team that lost their last game. If anything they deserved to be 4th. Hell, they got blown out, while Cincy and Michigan won their conference. It’s because the biased CFP didn’t want Bama and Georgia to play 1st round.
How dare us for trying to eliminate some if not all the decisions made by committee.
Still you nor anyone else has answered the question - If this system is wrong, then who should have gotten into the playoffs that is better over Georgia?

And yes, this system is vastly different from previous ones. We've didn't have a true champion until this playoff system as evidenced in 2005 when an undefeated SEC Champion from the best conference in all of college football was completely left out of a chance at the NC. It was a bogus championship. Under this system that has not happened and probably never will as you would have to have 5 unbeaten P5 teams for that to happen, and that has never been done in the history of college football. Also in 1981 under the previous system to the BCS clemsux was declared NC with only one quality win over Georgia in a close game on their home field. Do you think they were the best team in all of college football that year? That system was truly a joke. It wasn't a championship at all. It was a popularity contest among sportswriters.

If this system is wrong, then name one time that the NC was not deserving of the title. Name what team got snubbed and should have been NC. As much as I hate clemsux, at least their championships they won under the current system were legitimate. They beat the best of the best.
Heres the deal, to be perfectly clear, NO ONE knows who the top 4 teams are. And the truth is it doesn't matter whether you or I know. What matters is whether or not the committee knows. Obviously based on your own posts they dont. The end result is a flawed playoff system. Some people are good with a flawed product because they believe the end justifies the means, some are not.
 
If the CFP is fair and balanced, why not put Georgia at 2 or 4? They were the only team that lost their last game. If anything they deserved to be 4th. Hell, they got blown out, while Cincy and Michigan won their conference. It’s because the biased CFP didn’t want Bama and Georgia to play 1st round.
Strength of schedule.
And after UGA's loss to 'Bama, did they deserve to be ahead of Blue?
They got it right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cockofdawn
Same could be said for all of them. At least the NFL awards byes to teams that win their conferences.
Imho a system that starts the year with all and ends with one due to a process of elimination on the field is not flawed. To the best of my knowledge, the NFL has such a system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
How dare us for trying to eliminate some if not all the decisions made by committee.
Heres the deal, to be perfectly clear, NO ONE knows who the top 4 teams are. And the truth is it doesn't matter whether you or I know. What matters is whether or not the committee knows. Obviously based on your own posts they dont. The end result is a flawed playoff system. Some people are good with a flawed product because they believe the end justifies the means, some are not.
Of course we do. And the committee got it right. And now we have absolute proof. After one game we are down to what everybody knew were the 2 best teams in the country and it wasn't even close. The system is not perfect and never will be, but no such system is. This is the best system so far that anyone has come up with and is vastly better than what we had before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bucketdad
Seems to me that the best approach is to follow what basketball does, and perhaps what every other collegiate football division does, which is a hybrid of criteria various posters feel should determine who dances.

16-team playoff for FBS. All conference champions get an automatic bid (like basketball; for the integrity of the system). The balance is made up of at-large invitations. In the case of the SEC, the loser of the 2021 SECCG would have gotten an at-large bid. Seed the teams 1-16, higher seed hosts through the first three rounds, with the championship game held at a neutral site. What would have been different this year is that a G5 school (Cincinnati) likely would have hosted a first-round game

Like basketball, the final four will almost always be teams from P5 institutions. If the Bearcats win in the first two rounds, then they deserve to be in the final four. Like basketball, the early rounds will often be for straight entertainment with an occasional upset.
 
Seems to me that the best approach is to follow what basketball does, and perhaps what every other collegiate football division does, which is a hybrid of criteria various posters feel should determine who dances.

16-team playoff for FBS. All conference champions get an automatic bid (like basketball; for the integrity of the system). The balance is made up of at-large invitations. In the case of the SEC, the loser of the 2021 SECCG would have gotten an at-large bid. Seed the teams 1-16, higher seed hosts through the first three rounds, with the championship game held at a neutral site. What would have been different this year is that a G5 school (Cincinnati) likely would have hosted a first-round game

Like basketball, the final four will almost always be teams from P5 institutions. If the Bearcats win in the first two rounds, then they deserve to be in the final four. Like basketball, the early rounds will often be for straight entertainment with an occasional upset.
That would be a great but it's hard to believe the powers that be would ever go beyond 8 teams. I'd be absolutely shocked if the did. Now if they did go to 8 and only used Power 5 conference champs with the remaining spots at-large and call it the Power 5 national championship, that would good. Now the G5 can have theirs.
 
That would be a great but it's hard to believe the powers that be would ever go beyond 8 teams. I'd be absolutely shocked if the did. Now if they did go to 8 and only used Power 5 conference champs with the remaining spots at-large and call it the Power 5 national championship, that would good. Now the G5 can have theirs.
That would work. And there would be a TV market for G5 playoffs.

IMO, there are two perspectives to playoffs, both of which have been outlined in this thread:

1. Invite the "perceived" best teams with the best records, regardless of conference affiliation.
2. Invite all conference champions (with perhaps a few at-large bids) to play for the title.
 
That would work. And there would be a TV market for G5 playoffs.

IMO, there are two perspectives to playoffs, both of which have been outlined in this thread:

1. Invite the "perceived" best teams with the best records, regardless of conference affiliation.
2. Invite all conference champions (with perhaps a few at-large bids) to play for the title.
Additionally I would use this transformation to tell ND to join a conference or be left out. If they join say the ACC, that would open a door for someone like Cinci to join as well if they want to continue with the big boys.
 
Did Cincy belong? No, their chili is kind of weird. Actually, it's not that bad. I've been to Skyline a few times. It's just different from what I normally call chili. Likewise, their football team wasn't bad, just not what I would normally consider playoff caliber.
 
Additionally I would use this transformation to tell ND to join a conference or be left out. If they join say the ACC, that would open a door for someone like Cinci to join as well if they want to continue with the big boys.
Cincinnati is joining the Big XII in the next couple of years.

I disagreed with the ACC's approach to ND. They should have told ND that your league membership is contingent on your competing for a league championship in every sport that we sponsor and you sponsor on the D-1 level.

Obviously, since the ACC does not sponsor ice hockey, the Irish can do what they want on the ice. The SEC does not sponsor men's soccer; thus USC (and UK as well) compete as associate members in CUSA. Back in the Big East days of that 16-member hybrid, Villanova sponsored football on the FCS level (still does) and was thus excluded from the BE football league. Miami did not compete in BE baseball, but they do compete in ACC yard (less travel as well).
 
Cincinnati is joining the Big XII in the next couple of years.

I disagreed with the ACC's approach to ND. They should have told ND that your league membership is contingent on your competing for a league championship in every sport that we sponsor and you sponsor on the D-1 level.

Obviously, since the ACC does not sponsor ice hockey, the Irish can do what they want on the ice. The SEC does not sponsor men's soccer; thus USC (and UK as well) compete as associate members in CUSA. Back in the Big East days of that 16-member hybrid, Villanova sponsored football on the FCS level (still does) and was thus excluded from the BE football league. Miami did not compete in BE baseball, but they do compete in ACC yard (less travel as well).
I'd forgotten about Cinci joining the Big12. They've been pretty good the past several years so have slowly been building right. UCF also has a bright future there. They both could be a force to reckon with early.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
I'd forgotten about Cinci joining the Big12. They've been pretty good the past several years so have slowly been building right. UCF also has a bright future there. They both could be a force to reckon with early.
Back to ND for a second. I don't think the NCAA can/should force any school to join a conference, and not joining one eliminating the school from playoff competition.

But I do think the ACC wh0r3d themselves regarding ND.

IMO, the Irish should have joined the new BE, which does not sponsor football. That, IMO, is consistent.

I am passionate that if a school joins a league, the league must insist that all eligible sports the member sponsors must compete in the league. Syracuse dropped baseball after the 1971 season; thus orange on the ACC diamond remains exclusively in Pickens County.

I wish the Bearcats and the Knights great success, albeit not against us.
 
Back to ND for a second. I don't think the NCAA can/should force any school to join a conference, and not joining one eliminating the school from playoff competition.

But I do think the ACC wh0r3d themselves regarding ND.

IMO, the Irish should have joined the new BE, which does not sponsor football. That, IMO, is consistent.

I am passionate that if a school joins a league, the league must insist that all eligible sports the member sponsors must compete in the league. Syracuse dropped baseball after the 1971 season; thus orange on the ACC diamond remains exclusively in Pickens County.

I wish the Bearcats and the Knights great success, albeit not against us.
I hear ya. I honestly dont think ND would put up much of a fight if they were cohersed in to joining a league. They seemed to have softened quite a bit on the subject. What we do know is they will do what's in their best interest and we saw in 2020 what they are willing to do. I dont think it would be like them kicking and screaming in to a league, but yeah, forcing them may not be the right move... but I sure would strongly suggest it may be in their best interest. Or go ahead and play a ACC heavy schedule without the benifit of a conference championship and see how far that gets you.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Cincy was not a threat to Alabama, but who would you have picked besides them? They were the only undefeated team in the conversation. Notre Dame was the closest 1-loss team and Cincy beat them. Would you have picked a team with 2 losses?
The “nobody else would have beaten Bama” argument doesn’t support Cincy being in the playoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cockofdawn
The “nobody else would have beaten Bama” argument doesn’t support Cincy being in the playoffs.
I’m just going to say it.......I think OSU would have given Bama or Georgia a hell of a game. They slipped against Oregon and I think the weather at Michigan played a role in that loss. The idea that nobody can compete with Bama and Georgia is just not true. Georgia got hammered by Bama and a team like OSU has an elite QB and elite WRs that could do the same thing. Let’s not forget that Bama lost to aTm and almost lost to Auburn. They’re capable of losing a game. Michigan and Cincy didn’t provide a strong challenge for Georgia and Bama, but there are a couple teams that could.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
I’m just going to say it.......I think OSU would have given Bama or Georgia a hell of a game. They slipped against Oregon and I think the weather at Michigan played a role in that loss. The idea that nobody can compete with Bama and Georgia is just not true. Georgia got hammered by Bama and a team like OSU has an elite QB and elite WRs that could do the same thing. Let’s not forget that Bama lost to aTm and almost lost to Auburn. They’re capable of losing a game. Michigan and Cincy didn’t provide a strong challenge for Georgia and Bama, but there are a couple teams that could.

Their D was trash and they’d have been beat by 14. Go look at the decent D’s they played with O’s who could run the ball and they struggled.
 
I’m just going to say it.......I think OSU would have given Bama or Georgia a hell of a game. They slipped against Oregon and I think the weather at Michigan played a role in that loss. The idea that nobody can compete with Bama and Georgia is just not true. Georgia got hammered by Bama and a team like OSU has an elite QB and elite WRs that could do the same thing. Let’s not forget that Bama lost to aTm and almost lost to Auburn. They’re capable of losing a game. Michigan and Cincy didn’t provide a strong challenge for Georgia and Bama, but there are a couple teams that could.
You can say it but that doesn't make it true. So you think OSU could give Bama a game because Bama lost to aTm who has the second best defense in the nation, while OSU struggled mightily against the mighty 10-3 Utah Utes? Surely you are joking. They gave up 45 points against the Utes and have the 39th defense in the country. Utah's defense is their second string offense. They have none. Both Bama or Georgia would destroy OSU. It wouldn't even be close. It would be Georgia / Michigan all over again.
 
You can say it but that doesn't make it true. So you think OSU could give Bama a game because Bama lost to aTm who has the second best defense in the nation, while OSU struggled mightily against the mighty 10-3 Utah Utes? Surely you are joking. They gave up 45 points against the Utes and have the 39th defense in the country. Utah's defense is their second string offense. They have none. Both Bama or Georgia would destroy OSU. It wouldn't even be close. It would be Georgia / Michigan all over again.
aTm’s defense? Bama put up 522 yds on the 2nd best defense in the country. They won because they managed the game better and had the ball last. In no way did aTm’s defense shut them down.

OSU would match up better against Georgia, but on a given day they could outscore Bama. Auburn almost beat them. LSU took them to the wire. What’s Auburn’s defense ranked? What’s Auburn’s offense ranked? How about LSU? The team that lost by 3 TDs to Kansas St. I almost forgot. They barely hung on to beat Florida. I don’t need to remind you about Florida.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bucketdad
aTm’s defense? Bama put up 522 yds on the 2nd best defense in the country. They won because they managed the game better and had the ball last. In no way did aTm’s defense shut them down.

OSU would match up better against Georgia, but on a given day they could outscore Bama. Auburn almost beat them. LSU took them to the wire. What’s Auburn’s defense ranked? What’s Auburn’s offense ranked? How about LSU? The team that lost by 3 TDs to Kansas St. I almost forgot. They barely hung on to beat Florida. I don’t need to remind you about Florida.

LSU played with less than 40 scholarships Va Kansas State so gtfo with that trash. You’re doing a lot of ignoring circumstances and situation to justify OSU who played Utah and struggled even though Utah had an RB playing both ways at CB as well. OSU maybe highly ranked in recruiting but it doesn’t mean they’re actually top 5 teams.
 
aTm’s defense? Bama put up 522 yds on the 2nd best defense in the country. They won because they managed the game better and had the ball last. In no way did aTm’s defense shut them down.

OSU would match up better against Georgia, but on a given day they could outscore Bama. Auburn almost beat them. LSU took them to the wire. What’s Auburn’s defense ranked? What’s Auburn’s offense ranked? How about LSU? The team that lost by 3 TDs to Kansas St. I almost forgot. They barely hung on to beat Florida. I don’t need to remind you about Florida.

Then think what they would do to the number 39th defense in the country. It would be a blood bath - worse than Utah. Also, you're trying to make the circular argument that if one team beats another, and a third team beats that team then the third team could beat the first team. We all know that is a bogus comparison that doesn't work. But even so, in making that your central argument you conveniently leave out the fact that Georgia killed Michigan who beat OSU. Using your logic then wouldn't Georgia absolutely destroy OSU?
 
Seems to me that the best approach is to follow what basketball does, and perhaps what every other collegiate football division does, which is a hybrid of criteria various posters feel should determine who dances.

16-team playoff for FBS. All conference champions get an automatic bid (like basketball; for the integrity of the system). The balance is made up of at-large invitations. In the case of the SEC, the loser of the 2021 SECCG would have gotten an at-large bid. Seed the teams 1-16, higher seed hosts through the first three rounds, with the championship game held at a neutral site. What would have been different this year is that a G5 school (Cincinnati) likely would have hosted a first-round game

Like basketball, the final four will almost always be teams from P5 institutions. If the Bearcats win in the first two rounds, then they deserve to be in the final four. Like basketball, the early rounds will often be for straight entertainment with an occasional upset.

I'd go a step further and eliminate conference championship games for the power 5.

Each power 5 conference division winner gets in (that's 10 teams).

Each conference winner of Group of 5 conference gets in (that's 5 more teams).

Have 1 at-large for other team (Notre Dame or other "deserving" team).

That is 16 teams that use the regular season to earn their way in.

With this system, you take out the subjectivity of the playoff committee for 15 of the 16 teams. The committee only "chooses" one team in the field (either ND or other team). Then there would need to be some system/setup to seed the teams correctly.

Makes great sense to me.
 
Then think what they would do to the number 39th defense in the country. It would be a blood bath - worse than Utah. Also, you're trying to make the circular argument that if one team beats another, and a third team beats that team then the third team could beat the first team. We all know that is a bogus comparison that doesn't work. But even so, in making that your central argument you conveniently leave out the fact that Georgia killed Michigan who beat OSU. Using your logic then wouldn't Georgia absolutely destroy OSU?
Transitive property does not work in football. It's all about matchups....that is why you see results of games where you scratch your head.

Granted TOSU had a young and inexperienced LB corps and secondary this year.....so anyone who could exploit that could score points.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT